Grace Dent To Replace Gregg Wallace On...
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
a good age old question.
47 Answers
do ghosts exist, and who is more likely to sence or see them.?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by villa_fan007. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
I think to dismiss the massive weight of anecdotal evidence as 100% delusion or lies is actually a less rational, more fruitcakey approach than to keep an open mind about it.
What would count as good evidence - a clear photograph or sound recording? How do you know that pointing a camera at a ghost isn't as daft as pointing a barometer at a lump of plutonium and saying 'I detect nothing - this radiation stuff is all nonsense'.
Maybe the only instrument we currently have that can detect one is a human being, and maybe that will always be the case - who knows.
Almost everything we currently hold to be scientific fact has been dismissed as impossible nonsense at some point in the past - and not by the uneducated, but by the leading scientific minds of the day.
Why would this be any different?
What would count as good evidence - a clear photograph or sound recording? How do you know that pointing a camera at a ghost isn't as daft as pointing a barometer at a lump of plutonium and saying 'I detect nothing - this radiation stuff is all nonsense'.
Maybe the only instrument we currently have that can detect one is a human being, and maybe that will always be the case - who knows.
Almost everything we currently hold to be scientific fact has been dismissed as impossible nonsense at some point in the past - and not by the uneducated, but by the leading scientific minds of the day.
Why would this be any different?
I have seen no evidence to prove any spitits exist, everyone has a camera on thier mobile phone, yet no pictures or any hard evedence.. I watched most haunted the other night, isn't it funny he never goes anywhere where there are no spirits he can sense. It's all tesicals. I have been to mediums, spititual churches, my ex sister in law even reckoned she could produce ectoplasm, not whilst i was there though and i am very opened minded.
Well, for starters, if its possible to see a ghost its possible to photograph one. If its visible to you its visible to a camera. Its easy (but misguided) to take the "science can't explain everything" route and using that argument then anything is possible including Russell's teapot. But forwarding an argument which is basically "you can't prove its not true so it could well be true" is absurd.
Taking a counter point to your arguments based on numbers of independent sightings as "evidence" are we to believe that the sun once crashed out of the sky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_th e_Sun
70000 people apparently witnessed this event simultaneously so it must be true. Mustn't it? Oh and three children saw the virgin mary (in spirit) just days before and she predicted the sun would fall. Science can't say it didn't happen so it must be true. mustn't it?. No, we use more sensible reasoning: A meteorological event + mass hysteria. We could be wrong, but which is more likely?
Taking a counter point to your arguments based on numbers of independent sightings as "evidence" are we to believe that the sun once crashed out of the sky:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Miracle_of_th e_Sun
70000 people apparently witnessed this event simultaneously so it must be true. Mustn't it? Oh and three children saw the virgin mary (in spirit) just days before and she predicted the sun would fall. Science can't say it didn't happen so it must be true. mustn't it?. No, we use more sensible reasoning: A meteorological event + mass hysteria. We could be wrong, but which is more likely?
Tom, Do we know for sure that the camera sees everything we see? Are we aware of everything that science will offer in the future? Because something is visible to the human eye it may not necessarily mean the camera can pick it up. Likewise, perhaps the camera sees things that we don't. We don't know everything even though some of us think we do. The earth was considered to be flat at one time - and that was fact, wasn't it? I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm simply saying that I've seen a ghost and therefore, as much as I'd like to say they don't exist, I have to be completely honest and say I cannot deny that they do. I don't believe ghosts are supernatural - I think they are natural - and although in your determination to undermine me you've clearly lost track of the conversation contending that I imagine science can't explain everything, I'd ask you to look back at my posts where I've said that some day science will explain ghosts. Additionally, I haven't put forward the argument you describe. I simply said that I don't think we can consider everyone who claims to have seen a ghost to be either lying or hallucinating. I can assure you that with my lack of religious belief I'd rather not have seen a ghost, but even though you may not like to hear it, I have seen one, so what can I say?
As for Russell's teapot or religious mass hysteria, those are a poor comparison to the claim of witnessing the appearance of a ghost, and the very idea undermines your own intelligence. Surely if you were genuinely interested in discovery, rather than dismissing and denigrating accounts out of hand, you'd be asking questions. It's typical of man's arrogance to say that something they have never personally experienced cannot exist. In this case if you don't know, the only thing you can reasonably say is you don't know.
By the way, do you take your alias from THE Tom Paine?
As for Russell's teapot or religious mass hysteria, those are a poor comparison to the claim of witnessing the appearance of a ghost, and the very idea undermines your own intelligence. Surely if you were genuinely interested in discovery, rather than dismissing and denigrating accounts out of hand, you'd be asking questions. It's typical of man's arrogance to say that something they have never personally experienced cannot exist. In this case if you don't know, the only thing you can reasonably say is you don't know.
By the way, do you take your alias from THE Tom Paine?
Hi Naomi. I think that we can say that everyone who claims to have seen a ghost has interpreted what they imagine they have seen as a ghost. What I think they have not taken into account is the possibility that they may have been mistaken. Hallucination or lies don't enter into it. In contrast to a camera, which honestly records a scene, the brain interprets sight and sounds with bias. Its bias and interpretation that explains ghosts. My examples are robust. If you saw a light in the sky and told me it was an alien spacecraft wouldn't it be more likely to be a weather balloon?
Yes the tom paine ,a pseudonym.
Yes the tom paine ,a pseudonym.
You cannot say that everyone who claims to have seen a ghost is mistaken, Tom, unless of course you are privy to information that no one else has. Furthermore how are your examples robust? You've given me Russell's teapot and an example of religious mass hysteria, neither of which bear any comparison to the sighting of a ghost. Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, but it is arrogant to assume that in every instance you are right and other people are mistaken. I find it astonishing when presumably intelligent people abandon all curiosity about a subject that no one understands and for no good reason reach negative conclusions simply because they personally have no experience. As I've already said, in many cases I'm sure there are other explanations. I always seek a logical reason for everything, but when my ghost appeared, there wasn't one. It was broad daylight; I wasn't half asleep; the ghost was not a floating, diaphanous, moaning apparition dressed in a white nightshirt - it was as solid as you or I - and it did not stay for just a fleeting moment - in fact I watched it for quite a while and I left the room before it did. There was no mistake.
The camera is not as infallible as you seem to suggest. I've seen photographs that haven't actually recorded the scene, and since science doesn't understand this phenomenon, nobody, not even you, can know if these things can be recorded or not.
If I saw a light in the sky I wouldn't tell you it was a UFO unless I'd discounted all other possibilities.
The camera is not as infallible as you seem to suggest. I've seen photographs that haven't actually recorded the scene, and since science doesn't understand this phenomenon, nobody, not even you, can know if these things can be recorded or not.
If I saw a light in the sky I wouldn't tell you it was a UFO unless I'd discounted all other possibilities.
jeez glad i asked ......so any way i thought i saw one once in a pub toilet ,but not sure, a person dressed in black walked behind me but after doing what people do in the gents, i turned around to wash my hands only to find i was all alone .......so the mystery remains .......thanks for your answers, never had such a good responce....villa fan .
Ludwig, yes, you're absolutely right. Nevertheless, we plough on in the hope that we may be able to kindle just an iota of curiosity into a closed mind, don't we?
Villa, thanks for asking the question. Interesting debate.
As you're not sure what really happened at the pub, did you ask the publican if anyone else had reported a similar experience?
Villa, thanks for asking the question. Interesting debate.
As you're not sure what really happened at the pub, did you ask the publican if anyone else had reported a similar experience?
It sounds to me naiomi that you feel normal rules of enquiry are fine when you are sceptical about something but must be suspended when it applies to you.
Evidence is yet to come to light that ghosts exist, in fact evidence is bountiful that we can explain ghosts in down to earth terms. You come along with anecdotal evidence which you have unilaterally labelled as a "ghost" which I understand to mean the manifestation of a dead person. Furthermore you claim that this ghost was in solid form but there is a good chance that a camera couldn't have captured an image (you have no evidence why a camera couldn't capture this image but science may be mistaken on this whole image capturing thing who knows). You steadfastly refuse to consider any other explanation regardless that it may more simply explain your experience. That doesn't sound much like weighing the evidence to me
Russell's teapot is significant because it can't be photographed and you can't 'prove' it doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to posit that lack of evidence doesn't harm your argument
The miracle of the sun is relevant because the three girls interacted with a 'ghost' of the virgin mary and 70000 people witnessed the subsequent miracle. How can any of us say this didn't happen? Why is their experience with a ghost different to yours? Isn't it arrogant to assume we are right and they are mistaken? After all its very strong anecdotal evidence in favour of catholic christianity and maybe science will be able to explain it one day!
Its unlikely ghosts exist because the brain controls the body and the mind. There is real evidence for this. There is evidence of how the brain controls conscious and there is evidence that culture and experience colour our memory making memory a poor recorder of events, particularly in times of stress. The brain is powerful, we understand that.
Evidence is yet to come to light that ghosts exist, in fact evidence is bountiful that we can explain ghosts in down to earth terms. You come along with anecdotal evidence which you have unilaterally labelled as a "ghost" which I understand to mean the manifestation of a dead person. Furthermore you claim that this ghost was in solid form but there is a good chance that a camera couldn't have captured an image (you have no evidence why a camera couldn't capture this image but science may be mistaken on this whole image capturing thing who knows). You steadfastly refuse to consider any other explanation regardless that it may more simply explain your experience. That doesn't sound much like weighing the evidence to me
Russell's teapot is significant because it can't be photographed and you can't 'prove' it doesn't exist. It is a logical fallacy to posit that lack of evidence doesn't harm your argument
The miracle of the sun is relevant because the three girls interacted with a 'ghost' of the virgin mary and 70000 people witnessed the subsequent miracle. How can any of us say this didn't happen? Why is their experience with a ghost different to yours? Isn't it arrogant to assume we are right and they are mistaken? After all its very strong anecdotal evidence in favour of catholic christianity and maybe science will be able to explain it one day!
Its unlikely ghosts exist because the brain controls the body and the mind. There is real evidence for this. There is evidence of how the brain controls conscious and there is evidence that culture and experience colour our memory making memory a poor recorder of events, particularly in times of stress. The brain is powerful, we understand that.
tom
As I said in my first post I believe the phenomenon to be real although I have no idea what it is.
I believe it to be real because as I said in my second post I think it would be irrational to discount the massive weight of anecdotal evidence that supports it.
What we call scientific fact is constantly evolving and changing. We are continually formulating new knowledge and theory, which adds to or disproves what we previously took to be fact.
Do you suppose that we've arrived at the point in time where that process has stopped? That there is no knowledge beyond what we currently know, and that everything we currently believe to be true will never be contradicted? I don't, which is why I believe in the possibility
that these every day phenomena will one day be explained by science.
You probably believe as I do that the universe was created in a big bang from a point of infinite density.
What actually is our evidence for that?
Basically nothing, other than enough scientists agree it to be true, based on mathematical formulae and observations of distant galaxies.
Maybe they also have a clear photograph of it. I hope so, because now I think about it it sounds a far nuttier concept than that of dead peoples spirits floating about.
As I said in my first post I believe the phenomenon to be real although I have no idea what it is.
I believe it to be real because as I said in my second post I think it would be irrational to discount the massive weight of anecdotal evidence that supports it.
What we call scientific fact is constantly evolving and changing. We are continually formulating new knowledge and theory, which adds to or disproves what we previously took to be fact.
Do you suppose that we've arrived at the point in time where that process has stopped? That there is no knowledge beyond what we currently know, and that everything we currently believe to be true will never be contradicted? I don't, which is why I believe in the possibility
that these every day phenomena will one day be explained by science.
You probably believe as I do that the universe was created in a big bang from a point of infinite density.
What actually is our evidence for that?
Basically nothing, other than enough scientists agree it to be true, based on mathematical formulae and observations of distant galaxies.
Maybe they also have a clear photograph of it. I hope so, because now I think about it it sounds a far nuttier concept than that of dead peoples spirits floating about.
Tom, I'm at a loss to understand your meaning. I'm happy to consider anyone's opinion, but when it comes to people dismissing a subject without investigation, how can there be valid debate? It's completely irrational. Normal lines of enquiry are a good way to go, but you don't appear to be following normal lines of enquiry since you've asked no questions and have already concluded that this phenomenon is simply delusion or the mind playing tricks. What normal lines of enquiry did you take before deciding ghosts don't exist?
Once again you are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say there was a good chance a camera couldn't capture a picture of a ghost, I said we simply don't know if it could. Also, you've accused me of steadfastly refusing to consider other explanations when I've already told you I look for the logical first. Do you actually read other people's posts or do you decide you know what they're thinking and just make it up as you go along?
Russell's teapot is not significant to this debate and cannot be compared to the subject in hand because although no one can prove that it doesn't exist, no one claims to have seen it.
I have more evidence of the laws of physics and of the universe than of miracles, and having often considered the miracle of the sun, can only conclude that something happened which religious mass hysteria deemed to be a miracle. However, had it occurred today, with the knowledge and technology we have now, it would be more likely to be described as a sighting of UFO - but I suppose you 'know' they don't exist either.
As for an explanation of what a ghost is, I don't know. Perhaps they are the spirits of dead people, or perhaps they are people living in a parallel universe - or perhaps they are neither. Who knows? I certainly don't - but I do know they exist, and I think one day science will find the explanation.
Once again you are putting words into my mouth. I didn't say there was a good chance a camera couldn't capture a picture of a ghost, I said we simply don't know if it could. Also, you've accused me of steadfastly refusing to consider other explanations when I've already told you I look for the logical first. Do you actually read other people's posts or do you decide you know what they're thinking and just make it up as you go along?
Russell's teapot is not significant to this debate and cannot be compared to the subject in hand because although no one can prove that it doesn't exist, no one claims to have seen it.
I have more evidence of the laws of physics and of the universe than of miracles, and having often considered the miracle of the sun, can only conclude that something happened which religious mass hysteria deemed to be a miracle. However, had it occurred today, with the knowledge and technology we have now, it would be more likely to be described as a sighting of UFO - but I suppose you 'know' they don't exist either.
As for an explanation of what a ghost is, I don't know. Perhaps they are the spirits of dead people, or perhaps they are people living in a parallel universe - or perhaps they are neither. Who knows? I certainly don't - but I do know they exist, and I think one day science will find the explanation.
Latest Posts
This Will Put The Cat Amongst The...
News3 mins ago
Crosswords6 mins ago
Film, Media & TV6 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Body & Soul7 mins ago
